Let me go even further, I don’t think Tom Delay will be convicted. The disclosure requirements are quite onerous and complicated, particularly at the federal level. It is entirely plausible that if he crossed a line, that it was without intent or that some staffer did it. The most I think he will be convicted of is signing and certifying a document that he didn’t fully understand.
Oh, and does anybody have pages 5 to 24 of Clinton’s Jan 17, 1998 deposition? I looked for an hour early this morning and couldn’t find it.
And if it is not a SDMB social faux pas to ask, can someone point me to some threads where Bricker has taken the side of the accused. I find it curious that a former PD is so pro prosecution. I don’t have search capabilities.
For the third time, he was not “acquitted” he wasn’t removed from office. You continue to treat the Senate’s decision not to remove as somehow vindicating Clinton, when it has been pointed out to you over an over that that is not the case.
Again, you’re wrong. Clinton lost his law license and was found in contempt by Judge Wright. Were those done over nothing? Or was the Arkansas bar and Judge Wright more of the right wind extremists who set Clinton up?
And he got it. And he lied. Under oath. You are the only person I’ve ever heard who has this idea that somehow one objection in a deposition somehow means Clinton didn’t commit perjury. I still don’t get how you get to that conclusion.
Again. You’re wrong. That’s not how depositions work, thats not how objections work, and thats not how the law works. One objection, which was (for the 4th time) properly dealt with by the judge to everyone’s (including Clinton and Bennett, but excluding you) satisfaction.
OK. And?
Now we’re getting into tin foil hat area.
Once again, you misunderstand. I don’t think Clinton should have been impeached. I’ve never supported Starr, or the Republicans, or any of that crap. But I do have enough intelligence and knowledge to see that Clinton committed perjury. I know, in your little book, that must make me a Republican fascist, but you’re horribly horribly wrong. Again.
I’ll save my civility for someone who deserves my respect. On that count, you’re sorely lacking.
I agree with you to a point. The fact Clinton settled the case with Paula was troubling to me, but I agree that it was a politically motivated attempt to besmirch Clinton. But, and I’ll go slow here, THAT DOES NOT MEAN CLINTON DIDN’T COMMIT PERJURY. He lied. Under oath. Repeatedly. About material facts.
It’s a message board discussion not a lynching. My position that Clinton committed perjury is supported by direct evidence, the state of the law, and the facts of the case.
Nor was he convicted. When someone is not acquitted and the jury isn’t hung, it’s called an acquittal. Apparently we disagree. I am right and you are wrong, and so is everyone else. It isn’t a vote among SDMB members, it’s a Senate vote.
Civil contempt is not a crime. The judge pointedly did not say he committed perjury. She didn’t have that authority. He lost his law license along a party lines vote, and again, it was not a criminal tribunal. I’ve never said he was not in civil contempt, he clearly was per the judge’s ruling. He could have appealed it, but did not. But his refusal to appeal it doesn’t make it criminal contempt.
I’m the only person you’ve ever heard of who takes the position that the defintion was b.s. Well, you live in an echo chamber. I may be the only person posting that here, but google is your friend. Other people do too. And you may find that if you read the grand jury testimony and the August 17 1998 speech you will find that Clinton took the same position.
Your assertion about how depositions and objections work is really cool, but not true. I’ve provided citations. That’s how the law works. When an old geezer lawyer gets up in court and says “there are lots of cases like that” the correct response is to giggle to yourself (not me, you) and with a serious face ask for citations.
It is a violation of SDMB rules to misquote someone in the quote box.
Then why didn’t Starr include it in his report? Where are the 20 missing pages? Why exclude them Mr. Starr? Where they more embarassing than the cigar stuff? It’s pretty clear from page 25 that they were discussing the definition on page 24. You are pretty eager to ignore the record in your efforts to put down track for your railroad.
Heck, it might make you a Democratic fascist, which is worse. You are not guilty of a crime unless you are convicted. And it is especially perverted for a lawyer to go around asserting that, especially if not reviewing all the facts. I would rather Clinton have not been impeached too, but I sure as hell wanted him to have his day in court. The Senate was all we got, because they knew they had some votes and could make some hay there. Starr knew better than to lose outright in a real court.
I’m not asking for your civility, you clearly do not give your opponents that and it shows that you are wanting in your professinalism as a lawyer, a lawyer who asserts in a public forum that someone who has not been convicted of a crime is guilty of a crime doesn’t deserve respect. It misleads the public. Especially when called on it, you should back off and remind people what the law really is. You conduct as a member of the bar is beneath the contempt, to come before the public, as in this place, and to smear someone not charged or convicted in all seriousness of being guilty, without so much as having read the file. The public hates lawyers because they look to officers of the court to be beyond appearance of any impropriety, if you make a casual screw up, fix it and move on. But you’ve compounded it here, again and again, asserting that you are legal expertise, people should accept that and that this guy is guilty.
We agree somewhat here. It was a smear job, start to finish and an abuse of the system. The Supreme Court ruled 9 - 0 that the President could be sued civilly while he was in office. I thought that foolish then for precisely the reasons that followed. The case should have been sealed and stayed except for witness depositions, which should have been sealed for all purposes until Clinton left office. It was no more correct than the internment camp decision or Dred Scot (and I’m not using that as pro-life code). Judge Wright should have stayed the case under the exception the court gave her, it was an outrage not to do so. We disagree on whether Clinton lied. I don’t think you’ve looked at the case in a light favorable to Clinton’s viewpoint, but maybe you have. But he is not guilty of perjury, there is no verdict form anywhere that says that, nor an indictment. And it’s not because Starr felt sorry for the guy or was merciful, it was for other reasons. I believe those reasons were he knew he would lose the case. While I respect your right to have a legal analysis feeling otherwise, I disagree with it for the reasons stated.
Again, you misquote in the quotebox. Again, there was a pit discussion of this rule a few weeks ago. The reason you misquote and paraphrase is undoubtedly you blushed internally when I quoted Thomas Moore at you (or at least the playwright). I’ve got a point, and it’s one that you can’t directly address: this is America and we give up our heritage of liberty bit by bit when we call someone guilty who has not had their day in court, whether it is OJ, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton.
You seem to think that at least the Jones case was in some way tainted, and perhaps the Starr office too. I think most of the public agrees with your position on Jones and to include Starr, and I think the pubic perception extends to the perjury charge all the way to the assumption of guilt and perhaps they think there has been a finding of it. I am aghast at this state of the public’s opinion, because the charges were undefended and largely unanswered in technical and substantial violation of all the rights of the accused, and that the case was fabricated with full knowledge that a sitting President couldn’t drop what he was doing and defend himself.
It’s completely ignored in the press and public perception that Clinton didn’t get his day in court, didn’t get to call witnesses and make arguments. Do people have a right of conscience to make these assumptions? Yes, but I’m going to challenge them if they do so out loud.
But it is a verbal lynching of a man’s reputation on a message board.
At this point the lynch mob includes two lawyers (one non-practicing) trying to intimidate non-lawyers into accepting a verdict of guilty based on a partial record and at least in this discussion, no competent legal counsel actively defending the accused. I’m doing the best I can, but that is no substitute for the real thing: a trained criminal defense lawyer who is prepared and has reviewed the complete file.
And it does matter. People should not think this kind of verbal lynching is acceptable.
The jury says “not guilty” or “guilty” not acquitted or convicted. But if you do it different where you come from, so be it. But I watched the Senate trial voting, roll call voice vote, the votes were “not guilty” or “guilty”. If you want to say that isn’t an acquittal, then that is your opinion. It doesn’t change history. It was “not guilty”. It is in fact you who are divorced from reality, the nature of which, at least since Galilleo has not been allowed to be determined by a priesthood.
WILLIAM REHNQUIST: On this article of impeachment, 45 senators having pronounced William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, guilty as charged; 55 senators having pronounced him not guilty; two-thirds of the senators present not having him pronounced him guilty; the senate adjudges that the respondent, William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the first article of impeachment.
…
WILLIAM REHNQUIST: On this article of impeachment, 50 senators have pronounced William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, guilty as charged. 50 Senators have pronounced him not guilty. Two-thirds of the senators present not having pronounced him guilty, the senate adjudges that the respondent, William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the second article of impeachment.
…
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, (D) California: Mr. President, I move to proceed to my censure resolution, which is at the desk. KWAME HOLMAN: But as expected, that was objected to by Phil Gramm of Texas.
SEN. PHIL GRAMM: Mr. President, I have to object - this resolution is not on the calendar and, therefore, it is not in order to present it to the senate.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Mr. President.
SPOKESMAN: The senator from California.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Mr. President, in light of that, I move to suspend the rules, the notice of which I printed in the record on Monday, February 8th, in order to present my motion to proceed.
KWAME HOLMAN: Gramm, however, made a procedural move under which 67 votes were needed to take up the censure resolution. Democrats - joined by a handful of Republican censure supporters – fell short of that mark. They said they may simply have senators sign the censure resolution and have it placed in the Congressional Record. Early this afternoon, the senate recessed for a week for its Presidents’ Day break.
The Senators were, by their own rules, not impressed enough by the evidence to even censure the President. And that included a number of Republicans.
I’ve provided the text of the rule that proves you wrong. You’ve provided a few citations, yes - to cases that are not on point. You don’t have a single case that supports your bizarre idea that Bennett preserved his objection by offering a completely different objection while being interrupted by the trial judge. Your best cite so far has been the speculation that the “missing 20 pages” somehow supports your view. That, unlike your other inapposite cites, has an outside chance of actually supporting your position.
And even that is rank speculation. We cannot conclude that the “missing pages” support a Bennett objection merely because you wish it were so.
Unlike the late and unlamented Beryl Mooncalf, I believe you’re probably an attorney - you know the jargon enough that it’s likely. But I bet the last time you dealt with criminal procedure was your Crim Pro class… and I bet you struggled to pass it.
I won’t hold out any particular expertise in contracts. If someone asks a property question, or a patent question, I’ll shrug merrily; I have no problem admitting I don’t know enough to offer an informed opinion in these areas. I wish you’d take the same approach to criminal law, and stick to whatever-it-is that you actually do. Because you know nothing about procedure.
I’m done with you in this thread.
If anyone else has any questions about the process, I’d be happy to answer them.
I never like to fight an unarmed man, but I might as well help you get your pants up from around your ankles, Bob.
Seems to me that you’re being a bit of a fool there, completely neglecting to mention England. Truth be told, America shouldn’t be there as an empire of laws at all, in comparison to England.
Fine, you are done with me in this thread. We will consider that you have “submitted” to the judge of public opinion and have nothing left to say.
You say I struggled to pass Crim Procedure and assume I’m an attorney. Why, thank you for the acknowledgment of expertise. I’m not a lawyer and never went to law school.
But as long as we are casting insults, here’s one for you: public defenders operate from an entirely different outlook on the world than the one you have provided, and criminal defendants should be relieved not to have one with your basic outlook. I requested someone provide threads where you offered some kind of defense of an accused, no one took me up on it. I’m guessing that those threads are in the extreme minority of your posting. I’m reminded of the dear departed and unlamented Serene from Law & Order who the head DA (Arthur) fired because she was defense oriented rather than prosecution oriented: you are prosecution oriented and extremely so. Even Hamlet, a practicing prosecutor, does not carry the same level of bias you do. What happened were you a liberal that got mugged? Now I know that most criminal defendants are not clean, but I sure as hell would want anyone in the office but you, no matter how smart and sharp you were. You refuse to even place the burden of proof on the correct side. The idea that no criminal defense lawyer in the country could defend Clinton seems to be your attitude. Well, they did, successfully. And you make of it as if it hadn’t happened and were of no significance.
I point out to those that remain that Bricker left without having distinguished the citations I have provided except by his own opinion and Hamlet’s, neither of which include citation to authority. They did it on their own authority, and as lawyers explaining the law to the public, they should tell you that is meaningless.
Weinstein on Federal Evidence does indeed say an objection that is clear in context is sufficient and he cites cases to that effect. Neither Bricker nor Hamlet made the slightest effort to suggest otherwise. Their argument is that an objection must me made with magic words, such as “compound and complex” or they can never be made. To the public I say, such is not the law, see my Weinstein quote above. Bennett in fact objected at pages 25 and 78, and you do not need to keep making an objection, and I have provided authority that is an exception to the general rule, again, that Bricker and Hamlet chose not to distinguish, but to rely on their citation to a general rule. The law does indeed have general rules, including the one they refer to, but those rules have exceptions and exceptions to those, etc, and those exceptions are people’s rights, not mere technicality. If some lawyer says Objection, second hand information, that is a sufficient hearsay objection, just as Bennet said on page 25 that the definition was not understandable supports that it is vague.
The people attacking Clinton here are intent on interpreting all ambiguities and all deprivations of rights to call witnesses, etc. against Clinton. A prosecutor may indeed argue such, but that is not a ruling, and if he did it in court, it would be misconduct requiring a reversal on appeal.
Bricker mocks the fact that Starr’s report omits pages 5 to 24 of the deposition, when it is clear on page 25 that they have been talking about the the definition of sexual relations and Bennett is objecting . I pointed out earlier in the thread that if a party who has evidence doesn’t bring it forward, it may be inferred that it is not favorable to them (the exception being a criminal defendant’s own failure to testify). Starr’s omission of the deposition in its entirety should be construed against him, as well as Starr’s refusal to charge. The public has been presented with only one full side of the case, that of the prosecutor, and I published the not guilty verdicts a few posts above.
Don’t take legal advice from me, I admit it, I’m not a lawyer! I never went to law school, and I have no license to practice in any jurisdiction and never did. If you are charged with a crime, don’t take legal advice from Bricker, because he is 5 years out of practice and seems to assume guilt. (Or show me a thread he didnt’ do that in.) Don’t take legal advice from any message board, but rather get in to a local lawyer who can talk about your specifics in your case. You don’t diagnose medical conditions on a message board if you are a doctor, and the same is true of lawyers: any one who assumes guilt without hearing both sides and reviewing the full file cannot possibly be giving you a true professional picture: they are bullshitting.
Don’t assume that Clinton is guilty either. Google is your friend and there are web pages that take it on themselves to defend him. Remember that he was acquitted in the Senate by a “not guilty” verdict and that the prosecutor dropped his case and never released all the transcripts and that the prosecutor abused his authority.
Clinton was found not guilty of the impeachment charges 1 and 2 at his only trial, without being allowed to investigate or summon any witnesses on his own
To Bricker’s portion of the case, I rest, but I will continue to defend Clinton here against all comers. And I would be happy to respond to further Bricker posts should they continue to misinform the public on what the law is. And I will provide citations as requested as I have.
This particular member of the public opinion believes that you have had your hat handed to you in this thread. You have been out-thought, out-argued, and out-witted.
Ah, I see, sorry to overlook the UK empire, I need to pick up this soap, pull up my pants and explain, provided that you, oh keeper of jokes, quarter-master of wits, provided you don’t beat me to the soap to clean up the act:
As big as the British Empire was, and world spanning, they always had rivals, roughly 5 great powers, of which Her Majesty’s imperium was by far the biggest. But the post-Soviet hegemony of the US is far broader and more culturally influential than the Brits ever were, and with so much less military elements to it. That’s not to say the military isn’t important in this, but the genius of the post WWII to pre-Bush II American Empire was that so much of it was just economic and cultural influence when necessary backed up by force, usually with allies helping out. Throughout history, only the Romans had that influence. Even the Chinese, every bit as rich as the Romans if not more so, didn’t exert that kind of power (and weren’t interested in barbarian lands).
As far as legal systems go, Rome was a very safe empire to live in up until the time of Sulla, and thereafter reasonably safe provided one had nothing to do with government and in particular the emperor. The UK is certainly a direct descendant of the Roman culture, but invented its common law, which the US kept. The US based its government more closely on a system reminiscent of the Roman republic, and emphasized the republican element that laws applied to everyone. But I think that the League of Nations and later the UN and the World Bank and WHO, WTO, etc. are American and Wilsonian ideas.
No, I don’t intend to vigorously defend that point of view, I think it is an interesting way to look at things, but it is certainly supportable, as are others.
No, to posterity in general, not to Bricker’s asshole friends. But thanks for taking a statement out of context, but I was aware that you buttlickers have already given me 8 pages of examples that you could do that.
yep, must be that I’m merely a fan of Bricker. Couldn’t possibly be that you don’t come off as bright as you obviously think you are. I couldn’t possibly be a liberal who winces every time a moronic self described liberal posts.
eeee-yup.